Students,
I think if I show you a specific, annotated format for briefing cases, it will help you more completely
digest the crucial aspects to the cases you brief. I recommend that you set up your brief in the
following manner.
Case Name
Case citation, (year)
1. Facts
If there is a law being challenged in the case, briefly state what the law says.
If there is some individual doing something, or some government official or government body doing
something, briefly state what is being done that is creating the problem in the case.
If the case states it, restate what each party in the case doesn’t like about what the other party doing.
If you can find out how lower courts were deciding the case, disclose this in the facts.
2. Issue
Include the level of government, national or state. Try to include a concise statement of what the law
that is being challenged says, or the activity of the government is. Finally include what provision of
the constitution is at issue. Remember, try to boil down the complexities of the case issue into
something that is simply stated as a yes or no question.
Examples
May public school districts separate students on the basis of race without violating the equal
protection clause of the 14th amendment?
May the District of Columbia school district separate students on the basis of race without violating the
due process clause of the 5th Amendment?
Can California deny gay couples the right to marry without violating the equal protection clause of the
14th amendment?
May state universities adopt admissions procedures that absolutely bar a race from some types of
admissions without violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?
Note: Sometime it will be hard to phrase an issue in this manner but try first, before giving up. It will
simplify your ability to understand what the problem is in the case.
3. Decision
If you can easily do so, try to phrase the issue in such a way that the yes or no answer is consistent
with the court affirming or reversing something. Yes = affirm and no = reverse.
This part of the brief is simply the yes/no answer(s) to the issue(s) presented in the case.
2
4. Reasoning. (name of justice writing the opinion and who signs on to the decision and the vote count
(9-0, 5-4, whatever it is). It’s not a bad idea to state who is part of the majority so you can begin to get
an idea of where the different justices stand on these constitutional issues. e.g., if you start seeing
Brennan and Marshall’s name popping up in cases that support affirmative action policies, that might
help you predict how they might vote on different kinds of affirmative action cases. Maybe not always,
but you will begin to get an idea of what justices think about these issues if you know how they vote in
different kinds of cases. (You will have to go online most of the time to find out who voted on what
side since that information is not readily available in our text.)
In the reasoning, include a brief review of the major cases, if any, the court discusses that they feel
creates the foundation of logic they are going to use to decide the current case. You will often see
some type of a case review in the reasoning to set the philosophical tone of the argument used to
justify the decision.
Often, the opinion will give a list of reasons why it believes an argument is worthy or worthless.
Summarize this if it exists in the opinion.
Briefly include a discussion of what the majority opinion believes is the strength or weaknesses of the
side trying to justify the constitutionality of their action, be it the reasons a legislature gives to pass a
law, or the reasons a policeman might give to justify the way she acted, or the reasons a university
uses to justify a race based affirmative action program.
Conclude by stating whether the court is affirming or reversing the most recent, previous decision in
the case (usually from some state or federal appellate court).
5. Concurring opinion (name the justice authoring the concurring opinion and the justices who sign
on)
Briefly identify the crux of their argument. They will usually agree with the majority decision but for
some different reasons. What are they?
Do this for each concurring opinion.
6. Dissenting opinion (name the justice authoring the dissenting opinion and the justices who sign on)
Briefly identify the crux of the argument. Dissenters disagree with the decision and the logic to justify
the decision found in the majority opinion. Occasionally they will also attack concurring opinions.
Do this for each dissenting opinion
7. If you haven’t already done so in the reasoning section, briefly state why this case is important.
What’s the significance of the case?